Geocentricity

[Sketcher]

The "goats" is a figure of speech, specifically metaphor. What figure of speech is used in the verse "The world also is established that it cannot be moved"?

That is also metaphor.

 

[ananda]

That is also metaphor.

I'm not of the liberal belief that "The world also is established that it cannot be moved" is a metaphor, but thanks for your contribution!

 

[lesliedellow]

How do you explain the conclusions of renowned astronomers like Sir Hoyle who stated that scientific data can be interpreted in favor of geocentricity just as much as it can be interpreted for heliocentricity?

Einstein famously asked somebody, "Madam, can you tell me what time Oxford stops at this train?"

He had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, of course.

Technically, it is true that the train being in motion relative to Oxford is the same as Oxford being in motion relative to the train, but no sane person thinks in that way.

 

[ananda]

Einstein famously asked somebody, "Madam, can you tell me what time Oxford stops at this train?"

He had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, of course.

Technically, it is true that the train being in motion relative to Oxford is the same as Oxford being in motion relative to the train, but no sane person thinks in that way.
[/size][/color][/font]

The fact of the matter is this:

1. Scripture states that the earth does not move. Nobody here has shown me Scriptures otherwise.
2. Scripture states that the sun, moon, and stars are in movement. Nobody here has shown me Scriptures otherwise.
3. Scripture supports a geocentric model. Nobody here has shown me Scriptures otherwise.
4. Practical applications of geocentrism, including airplanes flying using equations based on a non-moving earth, is well established.
5. Scientific experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Gale, Airy, Sagnac, Kantor, etc. have shown that the earth is at rest and it is the rest of creation that is in movement around the earth. These experiments are largely ignored by establishment heliocentrists.
6. Even prominent establishment scientists admit that geocentricity is not wrong.

Yet we have liberals here contending against all the evidence, Biblical, practical, and scientific.

 

[lesliedellow]

6. Even prominent establishment scientists admit that geocentricity is not wrong.

If you want to say that the sun orbits the Earth, you have also got to say that the universe orbits the Earth. For that matter you could also say that the universe orbits Mars, or Venus.

In practice no scientist would ever say that, except for when they were trying to make the point that motion is relative.

 

[ananda]

If you want to say that the sun orbits the Earth, you have also got to say that the universe orbits the Earth. For that matter you could also say that the universe orbits Mars, or Venus. In practice no scientist would ever say that, except for when they were trying to make the point that motion is relative.

As you admit, according to general relativity and establishment scientists who hold to that theory, geocentrism is not invalid. Even Albert Einstein, inventor of general relativity theory, admits that.

And yes, I believe that the sun & moon orbits the earth, and the stars also, in a fixed path in a firmament beyond them, as Scripture teaches.

 

[lesliedellow]

As you admit, according to general relativity and establishment scientists who hold to that theory, geocentrism is not invalid.

It is the Galilean Principle of Relativity, actually. And you can be as eccentric as you want, up to and including having the universe orbit a telecommunications satellite, but in means nothing.

 

[ananda]

It is the Galilean Principle of Relativity, actually. And you can be as eccentric as you want, up to and including having the universe orbit a telecommunications satellite, but in means nothing.

Since it apppears you cannot support your liberal heliocentrism with Scripture, perhaps you would care to explain the geocentric results of the experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Gale, Airy, Sagnac, Kantor, etc.?

 

[lesliedellow]

When I first saw your post, I thought you must be joking, but apparently you are not. Michaelson and Morley tried to measure the speed of the Earth as it moved through the Ether, and they discovered that the Ether didn't exist. That was one of the discoveries which led to the formulation of the Special Theory of Relativity (a generalisation of Galileo's Principle of Relativity).

 

[HantsUK]

Following netzarim's arguments, we must also accept that the earth is flat:

Isaiah 41:9
I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.

Revelation 20:7-8
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth – Gog and Magog – and to gather them for battle.

A sphere, which most people believe the earth is, does not have corners. These verses, from both the OT and NT, very clearly state that the earth has corners. A cube has corners - true, but it doesn't satisfy the meaning of Isaiah 41:9. A cube doesn't have an end. If you keep going on a cube, you will end up where you started (just like a sphere) - only one that has corners and edges.

For those who think the earth is a sphere: what evidence do you have? Satellite pictures? Netzarim reminded us of the fantastic realism of modern GCI. Someone you know claims to have been all the way around the world? They are just part of the conspiracy! You have been around the world? How do you know you didn't just make a very large circle on a flat earth?

This is all nonsense! Normal language routinely uses non-literal terms when talking about real things and real events. The Bible is written in normal language for normal people.

According to the Bible, God created the universe. God is also a God of truth, not deception. The universe he created is one that is ordered and can be explored, and he gave people the ability to explore and try to understand how it works (one of Adam's first jobs was to name all the animals).

Gravity (the attraction between two masses - any thing from atoms to stars) does an amazing job of explaining how objects interact. It explains why, if you fall out of a 10th floor window, you fall to the ground, and it will hurt more than if you just tripped over in the street. It explains why the moon orbits the earth, and why the earth orbits the sun. And the movement of planets in the night sky. It explains a wide range of behaviours and can make testable predictions. That is the mark of a good scientific theory.

God has revealed himself both in the Bible and in the world around us.

 

[Sketcher]

I'm not of the liberal belief that "The world also is established that it cannot be moved" is a metaphor, but thanks for your contribution!

Why is it a liberal belief that the verse you cited is metaphor but the verse I cited is not?

 

[Pteriax]

"The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but from the late 16th century onward was gradually superseded by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler." (wiki)

The modern, liberal, unorthodox heliocentric theory you support will not be confused with the historically conservative & orthodox geocentric model.

Early modern age, not throughout all time. Ancient people knew the earth moves.

How far away should an object go until it is no longer "fixed" with the surface of the Earth? In any case, I disagree with your conclusions. Show me verses from Scripture which support your liberalism & heliocentrism.

Simple physics, it must go beyond the atmosphere. The magnetic field holds things in place too. This is not liberalism in any way, so your question is loaded to begin with, and furthermore you have only one verse to go on which is metaphorical itself.

 

[Pteriax]

Following netzarim's arguments, we must also accept that the earth is flat:

Isaiah 41:9
I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.

Revelation 20:7-8
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth – Gog and Magog – and to gather them for battle.

A sphere, which most people believe the earth is, does not have corners. These verses, from both the OT and NT, very clearly state that the earth has corners. A cube has corners - true, but it doesn't satisfy the meaning of Isaiah 41:9. A cube doesn't have an end. If you keep going on a cube, you will end up where you started (just like a sphere) - only one that has corners and edges.

For those who think the earth is a sphere: what evidence do you have? Satellite pictures? Netzarim reminded us of the fantastic realism of modern GCI. Someone you know claims to have been all the way around the world? They are just part of the conspiracy! You have been around the world? How do you know you didn't just make a very large circle on a flat earth?

This is all nonsense! Normal language routinely uses non-literal terms when talking about real things and real events. The Bible is written in normal language for normal people.

According to the Bible, God created the universe. God is also a God of truth, not deception. The universe he created is one that is ordered and can be explored, and he gave people the ability to explore and try to understand how it works (one of Adam's first jobs was to name all the animals).

Gravity (the attraction between two masses - any thing from atoms to stars) does an amazing job of explaining how objects interact. It explains why, if you fall out of a 10th floor window, you fall to the ground, and it will hurt more than if you just tripped over in the street. It explains why the moon orbits the earth, and why the earth orbits the sun. And the movement of planets in the night sky. It explains a wide range of behaviours and can make testable predictions. That is the mark of a good scientific theory.

God has revealed himself both in the Bible and in the world around us.

'nuff said

 

[ananda]

When I first saw your post, I thought you must be joking, but apparently you are not. Michaelson and Morley tried to measure the speed of the Earth as it moved through the Ether, and they discovered that the Ether didn't exist. That was one of the discoveries which led to the formulation of the Special Theory of Relativity (a generalisation of Galileo's Principle of Relativity).

Why would I be joking? As I pointed out, even prominent establishment scientists do not demean geocentricity as invalid.

Michaelson-Morley is interpreted by geocentrists as indicating no movement of the earth in the aether/firmament. The experiment is explained away by heliocentrists as indicating the absence of aether (the "firmament" of Genesis 1). Care to explain Gale, Airy, Sagnac, Kantor, etc.?

More liberal "theories" to ignore Scripture!

 

[ananda]

Following netzarim's arguments, we must also accept that the earth is flat:

Red herring. I am not arguing for or against "corners". This thread is about geocentricity; please start your own thread about your topic.

 

[ananda]

Why is it a liberal belief that the verse you cited is metaphor but the verse I cited is not?

It is conservative to take verses at face value if at all possible. You reject the plain assertion of the verse.

Where is your Scriptural proof for heliocentrism?

 

[ananda]

Early modern age, not throughout all time. Ancient people knew the earth moves.

Prove it.

Simple physics, it must go beyond the atmosphere. The magnetic field holds things in place too. This is not liberalism in any way, so your question is loaded to begin with, and furthermore you have only one verse to go on which is metaphorical itself.

You dodged my question: at what distance is an object no longer fixed to the earth?

You bore false witness with the claim that I only have "one verse to go on". There are at least three verses which claim a fixed earth - 1Ch 16:30, Psa 93:1, & Psa 96:10.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why would I be joking?

Because "the sun orbits the Earth," is unbelievable, even by the standards of Bible Belt America. Nobody has seriously entertained that idea since Newton showed that his theory of gravitation could explain the motion of the planets given a heliocentric model, but not upon the basis of a geocentric model.

So if believing what even arch conservatives, like B B Warfield, would simply have taken for granted, makes somebody a liberal - I give up.

As I pointed out, even prominent establishment scientists do not demean geocentricity as invalid.

And as I pointed out, no scientist would ever say that, unless they were trying to make the point that motion is relative. When you fly from A to B, do you think the aeroplane is moving, or do you think the aeroplane is standing still, and the universe is moving underneath the plane? I guarantee that you think the former, even though both descriptions are (in theory) equally valid.

 

[ananda]

Because "the sun orbits the Earth," is unbelievable, even by the standards of Bible Belt America. Nobody has seriously entertained that idea since Newton showed that his theory of gravitation could explain the motion of the planets given a heliocentric model, but not upon the basis of a geocentric model. So if believing what even arch conservatives, like B B Warfield, would simply have taken for granted, makes somebody a liberal - I give up.

The idea that the "sun orbits the earth" is unbelievable? How do you explain that even your most prominent establishment scientists who likely favors heliocentricity do not deny geocentricity as a valid interpretation!?

I don't know about the "bible belt", but I surmise that the vast majority of people have only been indoctrinated into the heliocentric model from birth and thus base their beliefs on this man-made tradition instead of Scripture.

 

[ananda]

And as I pointed out, no scientist would ever say that, unless they were trying to make the point that motion is relative. When you fly from A to B, do you think the aeroplane is moving, or do you think the aeroplane is standing still, and the universe is moving underneath the plane? I guarantee that you think the former, even though both descriptions are (in theory) equally valid.

Emeritus Distinguished Professor George Ellis, Cosmologist & Mathematician: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."